Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd

When determining the natural and ordinary meaning of an article, the court must consider the publication as a whole, including passages protected by privilege. Privileged material is ignored when assessing damages, but it is not downgraded at the meaning stage. The repetition rule ordinarily applies where a publication repeats an allegation made in privileged parliamentary proceedings. A newspaper cannot avoid that rule merely because it reports the allegation alongside its own investigative material. Whether a parliamentary report remains fair and accurate depends principally on the extent of the additional material, whether readers can distinguish reportage from the publisher’s material, and the connection between them.

Peter Curistan brought a libel claim against Times Newspapers Ltd concerning an article in the Irish edition of the Sunday Times and a substantially identical website publication. The article reported allegations made by Peter Robinson MP in the House of Commons concerning the claimant’s association with IRA money, and added material about the claimant’s companies and their accounts.

The parties agreed that the trial judge should determine two preliminary issues: the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, and whether identified passages were protected as a fair and accurate report of parliamentary proceedings under the Defamation Act 1996. Further issues were reserved.

1. Meaning. The article and website publication conveyed that the claimant, through his companies, was associated with IRA dirty money and was guilty of IRA money-laundering and financial malpractice. The court was not required to place the meaning within one of the Chase levels, although the article’s opening passages could support a suspicion-based meaning.
2. In determining meaning, the article had to be considered as a whole. Passages potentially protected by privilege were relevant to the meaning of the non-privileged material. The distinction between meaning and damages was material: privileged passages were excluded when assessing damages, but were taken into account when construing the publication.
3. The repetition rule was not exceptionally displaced. The newspaper had not confined itself to reporting the parliamentary allegation. It added substantial material concerning account qualifications, auditors’ conduct, due diligence and the claimant’s business associations. That material reinforced the allegation and made the publication more damaging.
4. Parliamentary privilege. Section 15(1) of the Defamation Act 1996, together with Schedule 1, protects a fair and accurate report of legislative proceedings. The report need not be complete and may be selective, but it must remain substantially fair and accurate.
5. In deciding whether privilege was lost through additional material, the court considered: (i) the amount of extraneous non-privileged material; (ii) whether the typical reader could distinguish the reportage from the publisher’s own material; and (iii) the extent of the connection between the two. Here the additional material was substantial, but it was distinguishable from the reported parliamentary passages and had a clear, real connection with them. It was not gratuitous or collateral commentary.
6. The identified passages were therefore protected by qualified privilege as a fair and accurate report of parliamentary proceedings. The second preliminary issue was answered affirmatively. The remaining issues were reserved for a later hearing.

First-instance determination of two preliminary issues. Further consequential questions were reserved for a separate hearing.